Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

nolo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 462 posts

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#411

Post by johnnyanmac »

tristor wrote: post #267
haizhung wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d go out on a limb here and conjecture that you can still by stuff from your own money without submitting a claim.

If the state requires it to be covered for all employees and it's subject to audit, whether or not I pay for anything additional, I'd still have to follow the policies and provide supporting documentation so my employer would be able to comply with the legal requirement. That's the hassle.

So you don't want more coverage because you don't feel like doing paperwork?

I fail to see the issue. These laws have good faith in them and of you refuse to give paperwork after multiple prompting you more or less waive that coverage. They have to follow the law but they can't force you to hand over your energy bill. Alternatively, they will estimate based on data they already have and throw it into soke benefits account (if one exists).

I also imagine there is a maximum coverage rate to prevent abuse, since existing laws require to pay only a portion based on how much office space you dedicate in your house.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#412

Post by [deleted] »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #99

Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…

[deleted]

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#413

Post by gamblor956 »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #220
lopkeny12ko wrote: post #99

Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…

Only a availability heuristic, but I closed 2 consulting contracts that were a _hard_ "no we don't hire contractors" by letting them know I don't live in California. Conversation changed as soon as they realized I was under AZ law for contracting/consulting services. I was charging $10k per week, and one contract was a total of 6 months. The total value of that contract was $240k (before my expenses and taxes). That…

Arizona has a similar "right to control" test for IC vs employee that California does, so the legal differences are minimal. If you would be reclassified as an employee under CA law, you're 90% likely to be classified as an employee under AZ law as well.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#414

Post by MilStdJunkie »

foobiekr wrote: post #388
MilStdJunkie wrote: post #68

My personal red line is when the employer insists a camera has to always be on in the working area. That's when I tell 'em, as nicely as possible, with an "aw shucks I'm terribly sorry", that they're gonna have to pay rent.

Are there employers that insist on an always on camera in the working area? Who?

Florida company got sued for doing it, not because they were doing it, but because they were doing it to someone who was in the Netherlands. NE law overrides right-to-work, even for a US employee, because it's in NE territory.

subsidiary had a department that did it - "do not turn off computer, do not block camera, if camera inoperative get one from IT" - but it was only for full time WFH staff. Supposedly the machine wouldn't boot up all the way without the camera coming on.

US employees in right to work states probably don't have a legal argument against this. And as always, if you do bring legal action, you're blacklisting yourself pretty badly. Whistleblowing, ethics complains, lawsuits are first filter passes for HR; hell, even for current employees, central "Ethics Hotlines" fire back caller IDs right back to local HR. So the troublemakers can get on the pink slip short list; doesn't hurt that the typical "troublemaker" is mid-late career, so it saves more money too.

Sure, that's a shambling pile of DFARS violations, but that doesn't keep it from happening.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#415

Post by johnnyanmac »

glimshe wrote: post #258
mempko wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally one of the purposes of the tax system. It's to encourage and discourage behavior.

That's literally NOT the purpose of the tax system. We tax people to pay for government expenses. Encouraging/discouraging behavior through taxes is very popular in the US, but not nearly as much in most other countries.

True, but America's history means that it has a relatively weak and slow federal government. Tax initiatives are some of the fastest things one can pass on the federal level.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#416

Post by johnnyanmac »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #67
ghaff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're going to pay for an extra room--which seems very unlikely (or should be) to be reimbursable as opposed to working on the kitchen table--the actual incremental costs seem pretty trivial. Even if you reimburse some pro-rated amount of internet and/or mobile, that's maybe $100/month in the US. ADDED: If you don't have an option to go into an office, a stipend for a co-working space may be reasonable.

> working [full time] on the kitchen table Good luck with your debilitating back issues in 10 years.

If you need to do this, especially if you are tall, invest in a good monitor/laptop stand. Does wonders and a good one is only 60-80. If you need to penny pinch you can get a foldable one for 20-30, but the stability is worth the extra cost for me.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#417

Post by tengbretson »

FireBeyond wrote: post #157
lopkeny12ko wrote: post #99

Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…

> For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. There's an adjustment needed. I have worked for and applied to healthcare startups that want you to BYO device. For working on PHI. In Production. We're not "all in this together". We all know that equity is worth nothing until proven otherwise. Stop cheaping out and expecting your employees to invest in your success w…

No one has ever tried to ban you from saying no to any of the arrangements you described, but you will advocate to ban me from saying yes? Why don't you mind your own business?

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#418

Post by TheCoelacanth »

PM_me_your_math wrote: post #257
ryandrake wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Businesses don't have some inherent, natural, god-given right to exist. We, the people, through the state, graciously allow them to exist and regulate them so that they operate in accordance with some public good. And even then, they have to earn their existence by being a financially viable business. It's a big hurdle, deliberately so. This idea that, ohhhhh we can't regulate business because it will make…

You might want to retake your constitutional law courses. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) grants the government power to regulate business. It does not grant citizens the right to do business. The right to do business and participate in commerce and trade is a natural right. You do not allow businesses to exist. You are nobody.

You might want to reread the first sentence of the Constitution to see who grants the government the power to do anything.

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#419

Post by phpisthebest »

sureglymop wrote: post #200
phpisthebest wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dont inject reality... If we pass the rights laws and elect the correct people with the correct opinion we can have a utopia... We just have to do it...

Instead, let's actually just not even try because we can't reach perfection and utopia anyway.

If government programs where judged by their results and not their intention I would have more faith in trying things via government

But in reality government programs are only ever judged by their intentions, never their results, and if anyone attempts to apply some kind of ROI metric to them the inevitable retort is "we just did not spend enough tax payer money for it to be effective" or "evil rich people lobbied for a loop hole that is just close it then we would have utopia" but of course that utopia never comes

Re: California employers must reimburse remote workers for all necessary expenses

#420

Post by mrThrowaway9001 »

detourdog wrote: post #320
brightball wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of many reasons to have a personal LLC/S-Corp in my opinion. Another comment in the thread really nailed this well. If employers didn't pay for commute costs separately, why does this become a line item? The employer does pay for gas and commute costs, as well as cost of living expenses...in a paycheck. I place a high value on my home office setup so I have things exactly as I want them. I also live in a low cost…

One weird thing I learned about one of the Scandinavian countries is that part of the reporting taxes is reporting of labor for DIY home improvement. The reasoning for this was that the economy could not be adequately measured if DIY work is not recorded. This really demonstrated to me the American mindset of freedom. I have no idea about California. I think another motivation is that they are trying make sense of wh…

No, there is no such thing in "Scandinavian" countries about reporting labor when doing DIY home improvements. You can deduct the material, or bought labor, when selling the house. But no your own labor, unless you run a company and hire yourself. That might work, but then you have to spend taxes in your company for that income.

Clarification: This is in Sweden, a Scandinavian country.

Edit #2: If you have a specific country in mind, please mention that instead. Makes it easier to refute.

Post reply on HN